Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Differentiate endpoint information in binding credentials #121

Closed
bmelville opened this issue Dec 19, 2016 · 4 comments
Closed

Differentiate endpoint information in binding credentials #121

bmelville opened this issue Dec 19, 2016 · 4 comments
Labels

Comments

@bmelville
Copy link
Contributor

bmelville commented Dec 19, 2016

Bindings return several pieces of information as part of the credential response. One key set of data is endpoint information necessary for connecting to the service. There is currently no way of differentiating this information, but it is critical to be able to access from an automated system for establishing network connectivity in various ways as part of the binding consumption process.

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that many different brokers expose endpoint information under different field names, e.g., ip, host, hostname, address.

We need the ability to understand endpoint information about a binding, including both address/hostname and port, whether it is by annotation in a schema (requires #116), or by making these concrete fields.

Proposal is introduced as part of the proposal for #116: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JbsJgqgNtqthcfYwK_KbS6C8sjElrZNgoLhu40dUPAs/edit?usp=sharing

@arschles
Copy link
Contributor

👍. My preference would be to at least include some concrete fields. A schema could add more information to the returned data.

@bmelville
Copy link
Contributor Author

bmelville commented Jan 3, 2017

I have introduced two proposals here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JbsJgqgNtqthcfYwK_KbS6C8sjElrZNgoLhu40dUPAs/edit?usp=sharing

This is introduced as part of the more general issue #116

@duglin
Copy link
Contributor

duglin commented Aug 30, 2017

on 8/29 call we decided to defer this for now

@mattmcneeney
Copy link
Contributor

I believe this is going to be covered by #392, so closing this one

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants